Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39802316›Full record

ArticleForensic science international. Synergy2025

A practical approach to mitigating cognitive bias effects in forensic casework.

Carolina Rojas Alfaro, Diego Ureña Mora, Mauricio Chacón Hernández, Adele Quigley-McBride

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Forensic science international. Synergy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Carolina Rojas AlfaroDepartment of Forensic Sciences, Organismo de Investigación Judicial, Costa Rica.
Diego Ureña MoraDepartment of Forensic Sciences, Organismo de Investigación Judicial, Costa Rica.
Mauricio Chacón HernándezDepartment of Forensic Sciences, Organismo de Investigación Judicial, Costa Rica.
Adele Quigley-McBrideDepartment of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Historically, forensic science results have been admitted in court, with minimal scrutiny regarding their scientific validity. However, following the National Academy of Sciences (NAS, 2009) report, the forensic community has undergone a significant transformation. This shift has demonstrated that forensic scientists and laboratories want to ensure the scientific rigor and quality of their results, but that they are often uncertain where to begin when addressing concerns about error and bias. In response to these challenges, the Department of Forensic Sciences in Costa Rica designed and began a pilot program within the Questioned Documents Section of the laboratory. This program incorporates various existing research-based tools, including Linear Sequential Unmasking-Expanded, Blind Verifications, case managers, and other important mitigation strategies to enhance the reliability of and reduce subjectivity in forensic evaluations. This article discusses the journey from initial planning through to implementation and the impact of the strategies that were adopted. The article describes how the Department systematically addressed key barriers to implementation and maintenance after implementation, providing a model to other laboratories for prioritizing resource allocation. This successful pilot program demonstrates that there are feasible and effective changes that can mitigate bias, and this article presents evidence that existing recommendations in the literature can be used within laboratory systems to reduce error and bias in practice.

Indexed as

BiasBlind verificationsCase managerHuman cognitionLinear sequential unmasking

Identifiers

PMID39802316
PMCPMC11720873

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.